Open borders

[halfmist]

People move all the time. Sometimes into posh areas. Social mobility is a positive.

Agreed on all points.

 

[metalblue]

People move all the time. Sometimes into posh areas. Social mobility is a positive.

Moving house is not social mobility

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

The open BORDER policy of Markel , the woman gave the green light for just about anybody that fancied a new life in Europe the go ahead, …

I suspect the open border approach of sweden, germany etc at that time has led directly to an increase in right wing govns in Europe. And contributed to Brexit imo. I liked their middle ground politics (Those countries) but I think that period has set Europe back generations in terms of racial harmony. From France right now, to the dutch, poland, and us here in the UK. We've all got problems with immigration, or with immigration being used as an excuse. Worst thing could have done was to tell everyone if you can make you can live here.

 

[BrianW]

If you go back to 19th-Century social history, you will find the same sort of virulent objections to Irish Catholic immigrants. Catholicism, outside the traditional recusant areas of Lancashire, was seen as exotic and threatening. And the Irish - well, even to repeat what was said about them risks offence. Read it for yourselves, if interested.

Nothing changes. People dislike anything different and fear the unknown. Be aware though that the ruling class love nothing more than division. The more you hate poor people, the more you are diverted away from the greedy billionaire grifters, the ones who are really shitting on you from a great height.

 

[Grassland Blue]

If you go back to 19th-Century social history, you will find the same sort of virulent objections to Irish Catholic immigrants. Catholicism, outside the traditional recusant areas of Lancashire, was seen as exotic and threatening. And the Irish - well, even to repeat what was said about them risks offence. Read it for yourselves, if interested.

Nothing changes. People dislike anything different and fear the unknown. Be aware though that the ruling class love nothing more than division. The more you hate poor people, the more you are diverted away from the greedy billionaire grifters, the ones who are really shitting on you from a great height.

I have been associating with such people recently.
I have also been associating with some much less so.
My question is where do you draw the line above which the greedy can not go and the other line below which the ordinary can not fall?
We live in a country, supposedly wealthy, which lets people eke out their lives on the streets. Why?

 

[BobKowalski]

Thanks for the history lesson, that’s not an open border policy, a border exists.

Is having an open border policy where millions could arrive from anywhere on planet earth in to a country thus swamping the education, health and housing systems the right approach or do countries need a cap in place (whatever that number might be) to prevent those services being overwhelmed?

Should we not have internal open borders within England? If talent migrates towards London then London has larger investment, needs bigger state services, and more companies set up there and it becomes self perpetuated - would restricting movement better distribute wealth and jobs? Crazy idea? It was Labour policy for Birmingham back in the 1960s - obviously an unmitigated disaster as a city of a thousand trades became reliant on the motor industry and a one company British Leyland - however was the policy of wealth and job distribution actually wrong?

You’re welcome.

however was the policy of wealth and job distribution actually wrong?

Depends how you operate the policy. The EU approach is to build up the economies of poorer countries ie Eastern Europe by having the wealthier countries contribute and the poorest receive funding to build infrastructure etc.

Net result is rapid economic growth and higher standards of living in Eastern Europe which means bigger markets for Western Europe. This was the Thatcher model when Conservatives did have a brain cell or two.

Putting up artificial barriers to the movement of people, goods and investment- the Tony Benn/Sunak/Brexit approach, which you seem to be a fan of, will fail because it always does.

You can see it failing in real time right now. The schadenfreude is off the scale in the Kowalski household, although I take no pleasure in saying this.

 

[BobKowalski]

Moving house is not social mobility

Depends where you move from and to.

 

[BobKowalski]

I suspect the open border approach of sweden, germany etc at that time has led directly to an increase in right wing govns in Europe. And contributed to Brexit imo. I liked their middle ground politics (Those countries) but I think that period has set Europe back generations in terms of racial harmony. From France right now, to the dutch, poland, and us here in the UK. We've all got problems with immigration, or with immigration being used as an excuse. Worst thing could have done was to tell everyone if you can make you can live here.

With respect to the influx of people from outside the EU countries then yes, but France‘s population also reflects its colonial past - as do ours, but the UK dealt with it far better than France.

The open border policy doesn’t apply outside of the EU. The EU external border regime is pretty horrific in its treatment of migrants.

The irony is these far right Govts, like Italy, or even ours, are openly seeking greater immigration flows from outside the EU because they need the labour. Even Eastern European countries are increasing non-EU immigration visas. Economic reality is a woman and all that.

 

[BrianW]

I have been associating with such people recently.
I have also been associating with some much less so.
My question is where do you draw the line above which the greedy can not go and the other line below which the ordinary can not fall?
We live in a country, supposedly wealthy, which lets people eke out their lives on the streets. Why?

I honestly don't recall seeing a beggar in the street before Thatcher. I suppose there might have been the odd one.

We used to have a system that gave us a more equal society. It was not equal, of course. The boss still got paid a lot more and had a nicer car/house. It was also, for most people, less prosperous in terms of consumer goods than 2023. In part, that was due to the fact we had not progressed so far. We had only been in the EEC for a few years and were still suffering from a bit of the 'sick man of Europe' syndrome.

However:

There was a lot less social tension.
The gap between rich and poor was not as marked.
There were plenty of employment opportunities - albeit not necessarily with good pay.
Housing was much cheaper in real terms.
Public services, including the NHS, worked.

How did it work?

1. There was a genuine social security system. You were not a pariah if you went sick or had to go on the dole.

2. Personal taxes for everyone were at a higher rate. But particularly for those on large incomes.

Was it paradise? Hell, no! But it was much more sustainable and realistic as a way of life, and we were gradually getting better off.

Some people did not like this setup and worked hard to destroy it. They felt it cushioned people too much and - this was the root of it! - they wanted to pay less tax.

The start of the destruction was a lie put about by the Tories and the Daily Mail that you could have lower taxes and the same public services. (Because, they argued, the public services would learn to be leaner and more efficient.)

This was an outright lie or next door to one, but it was a very attractive lie. Even people who paid very little tax liked the idea of paying less. I knew just such an individual - he was delighted when Thatcher got in, even though he was paid less than me, had a wife and kids, and probably paid about £3 a month in tax.

Where we are now, and the attitudes associated with it, sprang from that.

 

[metalblue]

You’re welcome.



Depends how you operate the policy. The EU approach is to build up the economies of poorer countries ie Eastern Europe by having the wealthier countries contribute and the poorest receive funding to build infrastructure etc.

Net result is rapid economic growth and higher standards of living in Eastern Europe which means bigger markets for Western Europe. This was the Thatcher model when Conservatives did have a brain cell or two.

Putting up artificial barriers to the movement of people, goods and investment- the Tony Benn/Sunak/Brexit approach, which you seem to be a fan of, will fail because it always does.

You can see it failing in real time right now. The schadenfreude is off the scale in the Kowalski household, although I take no pleasure in saying this.

I’ve no idea why you keep bringing up the EU, they don’t have an open border policy.